NO T REC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 10a0329n.06 No. 08-5528 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, Plaintiff-Appellee ,

v. JEREM Y SN I DE R, De fe nd ant- Ap pe lla

nt. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON A PP E A L FROM THE UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT CO UR T F OR

TH E WE STE RN DI STRI CT OF TEN

NESSEE

B EF OR E: B OG GS, RO GE RS, a nd CO OK , Ci rc uit

Judg e s. RO GE RS, C ir c uit

Judg e . De fe nd ant Jer e my Sni de r a pp e a ls h is c onvic tio n und e r 1 8 U .S. C. § 924(c) (1)( A), which provides an additional prison sentenc e for any person (1) who use s or ca rries

a fi re arm du ri ng and

in r e latio n to any

c ri me of vio le nc e or

dr ugtr a ff ic kin g c ri me , o r ( 2) wh o, in fu rt he ra nc e of any su c h c ri me , p os se sse s a fi re arm . Af te r a jur y tr ia l, S nid e r w a s c onvic te d o f s ix drugand we apons cha

rg es, includingthe above offe nse. Snider raises as his sole issue on appea l that

coun t s ix o f th e in d ic tm e n t mi xe d e le me n ts o f th e tw o d is ti n c t o f f e n s e s c r e ate d b y 1 8 U

. S.C. § 924(c) (1)( A) and that the jury instructions did not c ure the flawe d indictment. T h e G o v er n m ent ag ree s with Sni der a

nd conce des that Snider’s c onviction on count six should be vac ated. Count s ix of

the ind ic tme nt c ha

rg e d a s f oll ow s: On or a bout November

14, 2005 . . . the def

endant, Jeremy Dale Snider, duringand in relation to a drugtraff ickingcrime, spe cifica lly a vio l at i o n o f Title 21, United States Code Section 841(a) (1), to wit; attempt to manufac ture a nd manufa ct u ri ng methamphetamine, a

nd in further ance of such c rime, possess ed a firea rm, more specific ally , a Glock, Model 17, 9mm pistol, in vi olation of Title 18, United States Code, section 924(c )(1) (2).No. 08-5528

United States v. Snider

- 2 - Sni de r n e ve r c ha lle ng e d th e ind ic tme nt b e fo re the dis tr ic t c ourt . T he c a se pr oc e e de d to a jur y tr ia l, and af ter the c lose of evide nce the lawy ers a nd the cour

t all mix ed ele ments of the two § 924(c) (1)( A) off

enses. At no point duringthe jury instructions d i d S n i d er object to the cour t’s in s tr u c ti o n s r e g ar d in g c o un t s ix. The jury r e tu

r n e d a g u il ty v e r d ic t a s to a ll s ix c o un ts , an d Sn id e r w a s s e n te n c e d

to a to ta l

se nte nc e of

36 0 mo nth s’ imp ri so nme nt. Th e se nte nc e fo r c ounts on e thr ou g h fi ve wa s 30 0 mo nth s, but th e c onvic tio n f

or c ount six imp os e d an a dd iti on a l 60 -m on th s e nte nc e to b e se rv e d c on se c uti ve ly to t he 30 0 mo nth s. As the Gove rnment proper ly conce des, plain err or occur red in Snider ’s conviction for c ount six beca use the in d ictment and the jury instructions mix ed ele ments of the two sepa rate § 9 2 4(c) (1)( A) off

enses. See U

nited States v. Combs , 3 69 F .3 d 9 25 , 9 33 (6 th C ir . 2 00 4) . B e c a us e

c ount s ix of

the ind ic tme nt a g a ins t Sn ide r c ha rg e d a vio latio n o f t

he “ po sse ssi on ” of

fe ns e , but a lso inc lud e d s ur

plu sa g e re latin g to t

he “ us e or c arr y ” of fe ns e , a nd the jur y ins tr uc tio ns fa ile d to a lle viate th e p o tential for prej u d ic e to Sn id e r , Sn id e r is e n ti tl e d

to r e li e f f r o m h is c o n v ic ti o nf

o r c o un t s ix. See United States v. W

ilkins , 253 F. App’ x 538, 545-47 (6th Cir. 2007). The de fenda

nt’s conviction on count s ix is reve rsed and the case is rema nded to the district court for further proce eding s consistent with this opi nion.